Is our current president a threat to basic american freedoms, such as thought and relgion. His support to the right wing christian coalition is immesne, as in his want to be a tool for thier agneda, one that is very un-american and scary. Here is a quote from this right wing organization.

"The concept that one God, "Thou shall have no other gods before me", will somehow upset a Hindu, that's tough luck! America was founded as a Christian nation. Our institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being, a Being after the Bible. And we as Americans believe in the god of the Bible. And the fact that somebody comes with what amounts to an alien religion to these shores doesn't mean that we're going to give up all of our cherished religious beliefs to accommodate a few people who happen to believe in something else. You just can't do that. And that's been the thing that's been pushed over and over again. Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice, said as I read the constitution, it's very clear. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It says nothing of about a school district letting bookcovers be passed out" –700 Club, October 5th, 2000

And again the vail nature of this group shows itself as an instrament of destuction to the republican party.

"The Christian Coalition's has two central goals: to control the agenda of the Republican party by working from the grassroots up; and training and electing pro-family, Christian candidates to public office. The group has had considerable success in both areas, and their impact in state and national elections can be detected through their work during primaries and ability to mobilize Christian conservative voters."

"There are a lot of conservative people in this state who happen to profess Christianity, and I'm working hard to win their vote."
- George W. Bush

Out current presidents actions speak loud on how he plans to help destroy public education, something that is already going on.

senetor Jhon McCain is very vocal against such treason.

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the right."
- John McCain

related link
link on right wing organization

one nation under MY god

Does president bush plan to destroy the humanistc efforts that made an advanced nation such as america, is he a real threat to americans and the world by his support to such a group of fanatics?

I think Christianity, for lack of a better term, is the bane of my party's existence. And I think it is a total contradiction for the party of small, less intrusive government to advocate legislation that morally condemns lifestyles that in no way violates anyone else's rights.

It's hard to tell who's being quoted and what's just your own words. However, there is nothing in Bush's policies that should cause any of the concerns I think you're trying to raise. Good Christian men are also tolerant men. Are there fanatical members of the Christian right? Of course, just as their are radical Islamic fundamentalists. That doesn't mean you cast aside the entire religion.

The Lord works in strange and varied ways. He can be loved and worshiped in many forms.

You have nothing to fear nile. Unless of course it is the wrath of God Himself that concerns you.

My perspective differs greatly from this perspective. Do you have backup for this? I think we might need to define here first 'who' are the good Christian men. If we are talking about Bush or other prominent leaders, please, provide references to tolerance, a debate I shall thoroughly engage in with pleasure.

Bush is doing what he swore to do when he took the oath of office, which was to uphold the constitution and to protect the United States from attacking foriegn entites

Many would disagree, especially on the first part of that oath. Please support your answer to the debate question instead of merely assuming it.

I think the quote:

is funny. Bush, as a politician, is also seeking the black vote, the hispanic vote, the woman vote, and any other vote. He is simply closer to getting those Christian votes from the get go than other groups.

This is from nileriver's article:

But I never hear Jimmy Carter referred to as some sort of religious fanatic who was out to limit religious freedom.

Everyone should calm down. George W Bush is NOT Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. He is a Christian, and he believes in morality and personal responsibility, but I don't see any evidence that he is beholden to the Religious Right.

Really? Then I'm sure his comments the other night at the Rose Garden about "sinners" and marriage between a man and a woman and how he's having lawyers looking into to codify the definition, aren't "evidence that he is beholden to the Religious Right"....

Edited because the author of this post is an idiot.

Bush is most certainly owned, lock, stock and barrel by the religious right. He might not be Pat Robertson, but Pat Robertson's stated goal is quite clear. Pat Robertson told the Denver Post in 1992 that his goal was to "take working control of the Republican Party." In 1991, he stated "There will be Satanic forces.... We are not going to be coming up just against human beings, to beat them in elections. We're going to be coming up against spiritual warfare."

But you have to remember that there are many elements directly within the Republican party dedicated to forcing religion on Americans whether they want it or not:

"We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel in a political context."
-Republican Strategist Paul Weyrich, 1980

None of this is surprising, of course. After all, it was Bush's father who came up with the gem: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Since he's been in office, Bush Jr. has come up with faith-based initiatives, John Ashcroft, his support for Santorum, his use of a Protestant Evangelical minister dedicating his inauguration and presidency to Jesus. The list goes on and on and on.

A couple of Bush quotes on the subject:

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

"The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them."

"We come before God to pray for the missing and the dead, and for those who loved them.... Our purpose as a nation is firm, yet our wounds as a people are recent and unhealed and lead us to pray.... This world he created is of moral design. Grief and tragedy and hatred are only for a time. Goodness, remembrance, and love have no end, and the Lord of life holds all who die and all who mourn.... Neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities, nor powers nor things present nor things to come nor height nor depth can separate us from God's love."

Can there really be any doubt?

Billy Jean,

Many many many Americans are against gay marriage. Not just the President. That he wants to (I think the word he used was) "codify" the definition of marriage does not make him some extremist. Did you see that the Vatican (not George W Bush's boss, btw) has come out strongly opposed to gay marriage? You think a Muslim nation would even consider such a thing?

Cephus: every single President in recent memory has quotes that reference God. Show me some action. Faith based initiatives? I would call it giving charity a helping hand. There is no limitations that these "faiths" need to be Christian (even though this is an overwhelmingly Christian nation).

John Ashcroft? Is that guy even religious?

His choice of using a minister at his inauguration? What President has NOT used a minister?

Support of Rick Santorum? That subject was debated here on AD. Santorum had a well reasoned position, which was quickly dismissed and demonized by those who want to cry "homophobe!".

Still no evidence that Bush is any worse than any other President on the matter of religious freedom.

I agree with you, though the religious right are sadly mistaken in what Christ wants us to do on this earth. Christians are not here to rule over this country. True Christians are not supposed to be concerned with the laws of man, but with the salvation of the soul. These men who cry out for a spiritual revolution are going about it all wrong. in fact, they don't care about the soul, they are more concerned with power and influence. THAT IS NOT WHAT CHRIST TAUGHT. I don't see love in their message, I see fear and anger being preached. Christ said, "Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's".

If the religious right REALLY wanted to make a difference in this country, they would follow Jesus' example of humility. But I don't see them relinquishing their grip on their flock of sheep and ministering to the lowest in society, but they gladly take the tithes of of special interests...



Did God come to him in a blinding light and a booming voice? He sounds like the very men he's hunting down.


I see nothing wrong with this prayer, it's actually very comforting; though I'm sure someone else wrote it for him.

Amlord, I think you are trying to skirt the issue, but not effectively. How do you adress the above commentary of God instructing the President one on one directly, in his opinion? Gods Love, angels etc.?

I'm sorry, but quotes won't do it for me. What has Bush DONE that makes you feel that he is a Religious Right wacko?

CP

Yes, lets talk about the Vatican for a moment, shall we and their stand on the issue of birth control and the consequences it has on third world countries where the Churches doctrine IS the law. And lets not forget about the Churches nice cover up over the last 50 years of ramped child molestation within the clergy. They need to get the beam out of their own eye...

America ISN'T a Christian nation. We actually do not have a government religion, if you remember it's forbidden in our laws... You cannot compare a country who has a forced religious doctrine to us... at least not yet if Bush gets his way...

Actions, not quotes.

I have no idea who the audience of those quotes were. He may have simply been pandering to some group. He never referenced God's instructions to him during his speeches about the War on Terror. I don't recall some huge uproar (which is inevitable with certain ANTI-religion types) after these comments were made.

I need to see some actions that point to this "lock, stock, and barrel" ownership by the Christian Right.

Where is his bold anti-abortion proposals? Where is the initiative to make pornography a capital crime?

Here is the Christian Coalitions list of the top 20 legislative issues:
Top Issues Selected from 2003
How many of these are even on the public radar? How many have you heard Bush come out strongly for?

Sure he may be sympathetic to these issues, but I do not see a crusader out there fighting a "Holy War" in defense of Christianity.

Thats a long list, starting with the very first thing he did the first day he took office which was cut Planned Parenthood funds worldwide. That meant death for many women in third world countries.
It goes on from there, but Im still waiting for answers from previous questions in this thread before we get into faith based charities, africa, Iraq and Roe vs Wade. Are you filibustering on purpose or just in denial?

Oh, so what the president says to one group doesn't apply to the whole Nation? Please . Since he is highest elected official, I think that when he speaks, no matter to whom, he's speaking to the whole nation. You can't say, "Well, that was for their ears only".

Pandering to some group? Do you realize what you are saying? AND the Groups he is 'pandering' to groups making OUR POLICY, giving millions in campagn contributions. By the way, the huge uproar you are hearing is NOW, here. Listen to it. The rest of the sheeple dont know the difference.

Am I the only poster here who thinks that Bushes so-called Christian faith is merely figleaf? Bush uses the religious right, they don't own him. My understanding of bush is that his whole Texan folky traidition is put-on and Bush is in his essence a cynical, amoral politican with a genetic intuitive understanding of power and a lust for power - coming from the Bush dynasty family.

There are certainly *MORE* quotes on the subject from Bush:

"Tyrants and dictators will accept no other gods before them. They require disobedience to the First Commandment. They seek absolute control and are threatened by faith in God. They fear only the power they cannot possess -- the power of truth. So they resent the living example of the devout, especially the devotion of a unique people chosen by God."

"I really appreciate leaders from around the globe who have come to share in prayer with us today. It reminds me that the Almighty God is a God to everybody, every person."

"It is fitting that we have a National Prayer Breakfast. It is the right thing to do, because this is a nation of prayer. I know, from firsthand knowledge, that this is a nation of prayer."

"Scripture says: "Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted." I call on every American family and the family of America to observe a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance, honoring the memory of the thousands of victims of these brutal attacks and comforting those who lost loved ones. We will persevere through this national tragedy and personal loss. In time, we will find healing and recovery; and, in the face of all this evil, we remain strong and united, "one Nation under God.""

"God's signs are not always the ones we look for. We learn in tragedy that his purposes are not always our own. Yet the prayers of private suffering, whether in our homes or in this great cathedral, are known and heard, and understood.
There are prayers that help us last through the day, or endure the night. There are prayers of friends and strangers, that give us strength for the journey. And there are prayers that yield our will to a will greater than our own....
On this National Day of Prayer and Remembrance, we ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. We pray that He will comfort and console those who now walk in sorrow. We thank Him for each life we now must mourn, and the promise of a life to come."

"My administration will be more supportive of the good works done here than any administration in the history of this country because I understand the power of faith, that faith can change lives."

"And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves who creates us equal in His image."

"I ask Americans to bow our heads in humility before our Heavenly Father, a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors, but to love them, to ask His guidance upon our nation and its leaders in every level of government."

"I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president."

"I urge all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need. By volunteering their time, energy or resources to helping others, adults and youngsters follow Christ's message of love and service in thought and deed.
Therefore, I, George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim June 10, 2000, Jesus Day in Texas and urge the appropriate recognition whereof,
In official recognition whereof,
I hereby affix my signature this
17th day of April, 2000."

I think it's pretty clear that Bush puts religion first, the Constitution a distant second. Unlike any president that has come before him, he's dedicated to forcing his own sectarian beliefs on the American people whether they want them or not.

I thought I addressed faith based charities.

I didn't see any reference to the other items, but here goes:

Planned Parenthood: It really should be renamed "AoD" (Abortion on Demand). They claim to "counsel" people, but their counselling ends up with one result : an aborted child. The cutting of PP funding is just a resuming of the same policy Reagan and Bush, Sr had in place. Does that make those people religious fanatics as well? Did they deny anyone their freedom of religion?

The Africa AIDS relief has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum.

Iraq has to do with religion how exactly?

Roe v. Wade : I haven't seen anything regarding this (at least not anything that catches huge headlines). If you are referring to judicial nominations, which are effectively being stonewalled in the Senate, I guess I can address that. Most "conservative" judges are against judicial fiat. If you want a law making abortion (or any other issue, for that matter) legal, then make a law. Don't go to the court and sue for the "right" to take someone's life. Make a law. If it is the law, then court decisions are needless when you have a Judicial Branch who is against intervening in the democratic process.

Any other questions? Good, now answer mine.

Do you have any proof of that, preferably from a source that's not inclined to make up scare stories? Or is it just an unwarranted attack on everyone who works for or supports that organization?

Choosing Abortion - Questions and Answers


They do have this comment:

In balance, PP also has a page dedicated to abstinence: Is Abstinence Right for You Now?

I'd better back off my statemens, since their website doesn't support my position...

Actually, my opinion is partially based upon a girl I knew as a teenager who used PP as a form of birth control. Not scientific, can't be based in fact, but real nonetheless.

Let me just state that I am not a militant anti-abortion proponent. I think it is wrong, I think it is immoral, but it is also legal. Make your own choices, just don't use my money to do it.

Q: Is Bush a threat to a free America?

A: Sadly.... yes

Please read...

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,...d,109293,00.asp

Reminds me of the McCarthy era...

Notes:
1. The text of The Declaration of Independence as quoted here, is from the Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington posting on the web. There are several other places that it is cited on the Internet.
2. In order to get the Spell Checker to function, I had to edit some of Nileriver's quotations. I hope that I did not destroy the meaning in the process.



Among the grievances listed against King George, was:

One of the first things our Founding Fathers listed, as reasons for declaring Independence, was their right to allow people to come here, and be naturalized as citizens of this country. The original Pilgrims may have come here as Christians seeking religious Freedom to worship as they believed, but our constitution does not state that we have a right to "Freedom of Christian Beliefs," we have a right to Freedom of Religion. I heard my father speak of why he was raised in Canada. His father had been baptized in London in The Church of England, but as an adult, he studied to become a Baptist minister. In early 20th century England, that was still considered treason.

Artemise says:

The 700 Club is a nationally syndicated Cable Television program. If it is not on the air 24 hours a day, it certainly seems like it.


I don't know if we can blame the President, or just the Christian Right, but in Michigan we are now facing a new battle. Legislation has been introduced that would require that Biblical Creationism be taught as a comparative "Science" along with the unproven theory of evolution.

I listened yesterday, as the text of The Declaration of Independence was read aloud. The independence Road Trip Organization had found evidence that they believe it was meant to be read aloud as a rallying cry for the revolution, and not set aside as an historic document.

Some of the grievances against King George stood out. I am quoting here at length the charges that were brought against King George III, because they were used as examples in the Declaration of Independence to define a Tyrant.:

As I listened, I tried to imagine myself as an Arab citizen. Saddam Hussein was elected by a larger percentage of the popular vote than GWB, according to all accounts, but he refused to recognize it as a democracy. "Democracy" for Iraq is now an imposed form of government, and we have been told their right to select their own leaders was "never in the cards." Soldiers "arrested" in Afghanistan, are still being held with neither right to trial, right to counsel, nor right to visitation by the Red Cross or Red Crescent because they "Are not prisoners of war." It left me wondering just how are Bush's policies different from those of George III. Our founding father's concluded this section:


(Edited for Capitalization correction.)

Curmudgeon,

I must respectfully ask that you actually cite some relevance to this current issue.

The main one (it seems to me) that you raise is the immigration issue.

This country is not the same as the set of colonies that revolted in 1776. Immigration, while somewhat necessary, is not essential to the continued existance of the country. In 1776, it was a MUCH bigger problem, since there was SO much land, populated by hostiles and potential hostiles, that immigration was direly needed.

The President has not ended immigration, as some believe he should. The process is only marginally more restrictive now than it was pre-9/11.

I won't go through the other list of griefs, since I can't see any that might apply (dissolving Legislatures, imposing taxes without consent (the OPPOSITE has happened), blocking the passage of necessary laws).

Which of these exactly point towards George W Bush being George III reincarnated (except the name, maybe)?

And if you think that because Saddam was elected unanimously that he was the head of a democracy, I think you need to re-examine your views of the world.

EDIT: Chucky, your link is broken.

That's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Personally, I think we should be taxing churches. I don't like the fact that I have to pay higher taxes to make up for the billions that would be brought in just on real estate taxes from churches. But none of us has a choice on where our money goes, unfortunately.



Let's not forget that Saddam is in power because the US supported the Baathist overthrow of Kassem, who was backed by Russia and supported communism. Saddam isn't a nice guy by any means, I don't think anyone is claiming he is, but the US doesn't have carte blanche to just go into any soverign nation and force political change either.

Besides, who cares if Iraq is a democracy? Who says the US gets to impose a democracy on any country we see fit? Isn't that *THEIR* business what form of government they live under?

I certainly believe that President Bush is not only a problem for America, but also for the rest of the planet.

In my eyes, I really don't see Bush looking at this entire country as a whole. He looks to see what he can do that is going to better himself, better his family, and better the rich people. Bush is a rich person, growing up he was fed with a silver spoon. His father, later on became a President. When Daddy didn't resolve the war and kill Saddam, Baby Bush knew that this was his time. His time, to show Daddy that he could do it. He did it...sort of...and made Daddy proud. Again, looking at what is going to better himself in the long run.
Bush is now going after homosexual people. Why? It's not like they're sitting outside his door, trying to get him to con them in like Kobe did with his "girl toy". Bush is NEVER going to have to worry about a gay person coming onto him, because let's face it, he's not Rupert Everett. So why is he taking away the free right of a gay person? They are HUMAN, and every HUMAN has certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The free right of that human to find what makes he/she happy. Whether it's loving someone of the same sex, engaging in some joint smoking....or even a President gettin' his "mr. happy" sucked.

Your a little off base here my friend, planned parenthood wasn't simply "Abortions on Demand," they gave away much, much needed birth control. There policy is, and always has been, to avoid unwanted pregnancy first. They have never ONCE advocated that abortions are the easy way out, and they always will stress the usage of MANY types of birth control to avoid pregancy.

I have no doubt that the cutting of Planned Parenthood will give overpopulation a huge boon. And, paradoxically, many will also die from dieseases that will simply run rampant as well.

Reagan and Bush also cut PP for religious reasons. Lets face it, the Republican party is tight with religious groups. And the church has one stance on sex, ABSTINANCE. "Pro-life" groups have always been friends with republicans, so Planned Parenthood is always going to be targeted by zealots.

Is Bush a threat to Free America? No. Once we stick a democratic president in there, all of our rights will be given back again. Say, for instance, gay marriages dont pass and Bush ties a legal knot. Well, just as Bush went back and undid some of Clintons policies, A smart Democratic president will go back and change some stuff to.

Planned Parenthood as an educational outlet is more than local. Bush cut PP WORLDWIDE. It gave low cost STD testing and PAP (uterine cancer) smears, and much needed information on doctors, birth control and adoption resources. What PP meant to third world countries was crucial in lowering infantiside and maternal deaths by back street abortions. Overall the cuts are much more costly in disease and long term impact, especially for the impoverished who are less likely to recieve the education needed to make good choices, before or after pregnancy.

Our, or more like the Presidents religious beliefs do not translate when applied to other cultures. India, Mexico and South America, Africa, much of Asia, desperatley need birth control education, and so be it , legal abortion. Its not a matter of convienience but of survival.

As to the topic, a President who knows nothing of the world, and is a religious right wing zealot, is definately a threat, as someone said, not only to the US but to the world as a whole.

I am glad that i got the reaction that i wanted for the most part. I am very scared of anyone that wants to apply religion of any kind in the government. I do not even care what religion it is, to me its just wrong. The u.s army is becoming a very religious organization, from officer recruit programs called the saints to things i do not want to go into here, i fear that the Christian right is winning its battle in controlling America. Soon i fear for such questions as religious denomination to be on job applications. There is a major push to bring together all of the various Christian religious in America for more power. Left unchecked i fear America is taking a step backwards. I can only hope that i will be able to move, and or get out of the service if such comes to be in reality. I just hope America will remain "free" while i live here.

[quote=Amlord,Aug 1 2003, 08:41 AM][quote=Curmudgeon,Aug 1 2003, 05:31 AM]
As I listened, I tried to imagine myself as an Arab citizen. Saddam Hussein was elected by a larger percentage of the popular vote than GWB, according to all accounts, but he refused to recognize it as a democracy.[/quote]
Curmudgeon,

I must respectfully ask that you actually cite some relevance to this current issue...
since I can't see any that might apply.[/quote]
I tried to listen as an Arab, especially as a citizen of one of the countries invaded by the United States under this Presidency.

[quote]He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.[/quote]
I have repeatedly read in the newspaper that any attempts by the Iraqi people to institute any form of self government have been thwarted. At one point came a message from the White House, "That was never in the cards." Our soldiers are acting as "policemen," but do the Iraqi people know what laws they are enforcing? Do they speak English well enough to understand what they are being told by the person pointing a rifle at them?

[quote]He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. 

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:[/quote]
I suspect that under martial law, our soldiers are acting the part of policeman, judge, and jury.

I doubt that an American soldier is apt to be court-marshaled for killing an Iraqi citizen, even though "We have seen an end to hostilities."

[quote]For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:[/quote]
I doubt very much if they are even able to sell oil for food at the moment, as I have read mostly of antiquated equipment, in poor repair, etc.

[quote]For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:[/quote]
One of the first actions that our soldiers took was to set up a system of taxation to pay for the "interim government" of Iraq. The newspaper stories that I read about this action stressed that the Iraqi response to this was one of complete confusion. All the cost of the government had been paid for decades from the sale of oil, and there was no such thing as taxation.

[quote]For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:[/quote]
The soldiers being held prisoner in Guantanamo are not even being allowed the dignity afforded Prisoners of War by the Geneva Convention, because they weren't in uniform when they were captured. Because of this, they were transported to Cuba, and are being held with neither trial nor right to attorney.

[quote]For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:[/quote]
This likely referenced Canada originally, but could it be used to demonstrate that our support of Israel is being used to threaten other nations in the region?

[quote]For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:[/quote]
Substitute Islamic Laws for English Laws, in the above citation, and a devout Muslim might be thoroughly confused and angry.

[quote]For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation[/quote]
Afghanistan and Iraq have both been "bombed back to the Stone Age," as the popular local expression has it. Then it's, "Oh wait, that where they were to start with." Our news media report only the American death toll. Only once or twice, have I heard a mention of how many British soldiers died. In Vietnam, we were given daily "body counts" of how many Vietnamese were killed. These are Arabs that are dying though, so our news media apparently see no cause for concern as to how many are dying.

[quote]He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.[/quote]
Substitute Kurd for Indian. We have formed "alliances" with different tribes in the area to help us win this war. Apparently the Kurds are effective fighters. I have seen no reports that they have even been injured in battle, let alone killed.

Is Bush a threat to a Free America? If I were a terrorist recruiter or trainer; The Declaration of Independence might make a powerful outline for a list of grievances recently committed against the Arab nations. My point was that I had listened to it from the point of view of being an Arab in today's world. Al Quaida had demonstrated that it was a direct threat to the United States. Iraq had merely proven that it had a leader foolish enough to challenge the President of the United States to a duel. "Don't take a knife to a gun fight." was a popular saying in the factory. I think GWB felt that Stealth bombers armed with MOABS were good weapons to take to a duel. There is a long tradition in The Middle East of an eye for an eye, and a life for a life; and I don't think anyone involved is willing to settle for a tied scorecard, including President Bush. His consistent use of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East will eventually result in an attempt at retaliation. The attacks on 9/11 led to a government driven by fear. Did they really need the power to know everything that we are reading? I am plagued by Pornographic pop-ups and SPAM. Will a computer search of the Internet reveal that I have been "reading" or "visiting" these sites in the 3/10 of a second it takes me to react and delete them? What new measures will be forced through Congress if we suffer another major terrorist attack?

[quote=Amlord,Aug 1 2003, 08:41 AM]And if you think that because Saddam was elected unanimously that he was the head of a democracy, I think you need to re-examine your views of the world.[/quote]
I was not trying to represent my personal beliefs. One hundred percent of the vote sounds like a seriously fixed election. If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines , says Thom Hartmann, but that's fodder for another thread.

Look at this issue though, from the perspective of an Iraqi voter. There likely were voters there who were on the government payroll, living the good life, and who shared that perspective with a circle of friends who had similar ties to the status quo. Their President won an undisputed victory. The along comes George W. Bush with his attitude of "We're going to institute a true democracy in Iraq. We won't let them elect Islamic leaders however, because that might lead to Islamic laws being instituted." Does he plan to install a Christian Leadership Council in an area of the world, where preaching Christianity can lead to a death sentence?

I am guilty of going off topic as much as anyone but in this case I feel the Aug 2 2003 post by curmudgeon may be justified.
There are finer points to every topic that may appear to deviate a little from the 'black and white' while still retaining the subtle flavour.
Possibly a brief precis at the end of longer posts would help.

It may be of interest for you to know that George III was known as 'Mad King George' and was as much of a threat to World peace AND the freedom of the English as GWB is now to Americans and the World.
BOTH had self interest, and corporate wealth as the prime motive.
The commonality between the two 'Mad Georges' is there to see, written into your own original constitution.

I feel this may be the silk thread being drawn by curmudgeon and apologise in advance if I am wrong.

Regards.....Alan

A related article from the NYT;

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/31/opinion/...4a2a89360aed9d6

moif,

Thanks. Unfortunately, that link says it all. That is the stark reality, and it amazes me how many people will try to explain it away. "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt..."

We need to watch to see if these so-called "Patriot Acts" get repealed once Fearless Leader starts proclaiming his victory over the terrorists, if that happens. These acts, although purported to be for our safety, are more insidious to our way of life than radical Islamist suicide bombers could ever be.

It beats me how someone who would stringently oppose uniform, government-administered health care lets pass without comment the measures this administration has taken to invade the privacy of its citizens or deny citizens habeas corpus for their "protection."